>>>welcome visitor, haven't logged in. Login
Subscribe Now Contact us  
Font Size:  A A A Search “Fabao” Window English 中文 = 简体  繁体
  Favorite   DownLoad   Print
 
Wei Jingcheng v. Yang Zhenlan (case regarding dispute over the right to use the homestead)
魏井成诉杨振兰宅基地使用权案
【法宝引证码】
  • Type of Dispute: Civil-->Property
  • Legal document: Ruling
  • Judgment date: 11-15-2011
  • Procedural status: Trial at First Instance
*尊敬的用户,您好!本篇仅为该案例的英文摘要。北大法宝提供单独的翻译服务,如需整篇翻译,请发邮件至database@chinalawinfo.com,或致电86 (10) 8268-9699进行咨询。
*Dear user, this document contains only a summary of the respective judicial case. To request a full-text translation as an additional service, please contact us at:  + 86 (10) 8268-9699 database@chinalawinfo.com

Wei Jingcheng v. Yang Zhenlan (case regarding dispute over the right to use the homestead)
(case regarding dispute over the right to use the homestead)
魏井成诉杨振兰宅基地使用权案
[Key Terms]
the principle of ne bis in idem ; same subject matter ; cause of action ; cause of case
[核心术语]
一事不再理;同一诉讼标的;诉讼理由;案由
[Disputed Issues]
After judgment of a case takes effect, can the plaintiff re-sue the same defendant with different cause of action and cause of the case for the same subject matter?
[争议焦点]
案件判决生效之后,原告还能否针对同一诉讼标的以不同的诉讼理由和案由再次起诉同一被告人?
[Case Summary]
The principle of ne bis in idem means that the defendant in a case where the judgment or ruling has already had legal effect shall not be prosecuted and tried again. In judicial practice when a judge applies this principle to a case he should make a judgment from the following two angles: first the judgment of "idem”. The so-called " idem" refers to the same claim made by the same party based on the same legal relationship. The second is the judgment of the applicable premise that is...
[案例要旨]
一事不再理原则是指对判决、裁定已经发生法律效力的案件的被告人不得再次起诉和审理。在司法实践中法官适用该原则审判案件时应从以下两个角度作出判断:首先是对“一事”的判断所谓“一事”...

Full-text omitted.来自北大法宝

北大法宝

 

魏井成诉杨振兰宅基地使用权案

 裁判书字号
 一审裁定书:北京市门头沟区人民法院(2011)门字第1869号。
 二审裁定书:北京市第一中级人民法院(2011)民上字第16232号。
 案由:宅基地使用权纠纷。
 诉讼双方
 原告(上诉人):魏井成。
 委托代理人:齐世文。
 被告(被上诉人):杨振兰。
 委托代理人:殷硕。
 审级:二审。
 审判机关和审判组织
 一审法院:北京市门头沟区人民法院。
 独任审判员:杜宇。
 二审法院:北京市第一中级人民法院。
 合议庭组成人员:审判长:辛荣;代理审判员:梁冰、徐冰。
 审结时间
 一审审结时间:2011年9月16日。
 二审审结时间:2011年11月15日。
 一审诉辩主张
 原告魏井成诉称:其与杨振兰相邻,其房屋所有权证上的附图明确了宅基地范围。两家之间的界墙被杨振兰于2009年作为房屋的后墙盖房,房屋的后檐伸入其院落17厘米,而且房顶的后檐雨水经过其家院落排出,为此,其曾以相邻关系为由,起诉要求杨振兰排除妨碍,但门头沟区人民法院作出(2010)门民初字第1404号判决,驳回了其诉讼请求。其上诉后,二审法院虽然维持了门头沟法院的判决,但同时确定杨振兰所建房屋是否侵占其宅基地使用权不属于本案审理范围。通过其房屋所有权证及建房批示足以说明其宅基地使用范围,被告的房檐已经侵占其宅基地使用权,故起诉要求:(1)判令杨振兰立即拆除伸入其宅基地的房檐;(2)判令杨振兰对其宅基地排雨水的房屋做排水设施;(3)案件受理费由杨振兰负担。
 被告杨振兰辩称:本次诉讼之前,魏井成就以同样的要求曾经向法院起诉,但被法院驳回其诉讼请求,魏井成不服提起上诉后,二审法院维持了原审法院的判决。魏井成属于滥用诉权,请求法院驳回他的诉讼请求。
 一审事实和证据
 北京市门头沟区人民法院经公开审理查明:魏井成与杨振兰系南北院邻居,魏井成居南院,两家之间原有一道东西向院墙,为杨振兰所有。2009年七八月间,杨振兰用其南院墙,建盖南房三间(南房后墙为加高的南院墙)。之后,魏井成以杨振兰所建南房未留有滴水,对其北房、东房、洗澡间以及锅炉房造成妨碍为由,诉至本院,要求杨振兰拆除南房,留有滴水。2010年11月5日,门头沟区人民法院作出(2010)门民初字第1404号民事判决,驳回了魏井成的诉讼请求。魏井成不服该判决,提起上诉,北京市第一中级人民法院于2011年3月14日作出(2011)一中民终字第00611号判决:驳回上诉,维持原判。
 ......

Dear visitor, you are attempting to view a subscription-based section of lawinfochina.com. If you are already a subscriber, please login to enjoy access to our databases. If you are not a subscriber, you can pay for a document through Online Pay and read it immediately after payment.
An entity user can apply for a trial account or contact us for your purchase.
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail: database@chinalawinfo.com

 
您好:您现在要进入的是北大法律英文网会员专区。
如您是我们英文用户可直接 登录,进入会员专区查询您所需要的信息;如您还不是我们 的英文用户;您可通过网上支付进行单篇购买,支付成功后即可立即查看本篇内容;
单位用户可申请试用或者来电咨询购买。
Tel: +86 (10) 82689699, +86 (10) 82668266 ext. 153
Mobile: +86 13311570712
Fax: +86 (10) 82668268
E-mail:database@chinalawinfo.com
     
     
Scan QR Code and Read on Mobile
【法宝引证码】        北大法宝en.pkulaw.cn
Message: Please kindly comment on the present translation.
 
Confirmation Code:
Click image to reset code
 
  Translations are by lawinfochina.com, and we retain exclusive copyright over content found on our website except for content we publish as authorized by respective copyright owners or content that is publicly available from government sources.

Due to differences in language, legal systems, and culture, English translations of Chinese law are for reference purposes only. Please use the official Chinese-language versions as the final authority. Lawinfochina.com and its staff will not be directly or indirectly liable for use of materials found on this website.

We welcome your comments and suggestions, which assist us in continuing to improve the quality of our materials as we dynamically expand content.
 
Home | About us | Disclaimer | Chinese